square4 Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 A common objection against anarchy is: Who will take care of the poor? The response might be: The free market will provide much more wealth, and for that reason, help the poor. But even then, there will always be people that are unable to earn a living because of sickness or other disabilities. These people will depend on voluntary donations from others. But many people would like more assurance that indeed other people will help them in time of need. It is possible in a free society to provide this assurance as well. And we do not have to wait for anarchy to arrive, to show this is true. This brings me to the idea of a libertarian trust fund for the poor. It could function as follows: - People transfer money to the trust fund voluntarily. - When anarchy arrives, it is contractually required that the money is transferred to the poor, in some predefined way. - As long as the state persists, the money in the trust fund is invested, and after a predefined number of years, released back to the original owners with interest. People could voluntarily replace it with new money. - There could be multiple competing trust funds with different pay-out rules, different investment strategies, etc. Possible benefits: - It could be referred to in debates to show that anarchists are willing to give to the poor when not forced to. - It could provide some level of assurance for the case we or others would be poor in a situation of anarchy. - It could show people that there are viable ethical alternatives for state welfare programs, providing the same level of assurance, demonstrating the state is redundant. - It could be made sure the money is not directly invested in NAP-violating state projects. I would be interested in hearing your opinion about this.
dsayers Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 there will always be people that are unable to earn a living because of sickness or other disabilities. These people will depend on voluntary donations from others. I disagree on both counts. Without State force to socialize the consequences of bad mistakes, people will be more likely to make better decisions, including getting insurance for such things. Also, "others" is vague. Even with the State, others includes one's support network and doesn't necessarily have to extend to others. Or, in the case of people that provide great value to others, help comes anyways. Think Stef getting cancer. - When anarchy arrives, it is contractually required that the money is transferred to the poor, in some predefined way. There would be much debate over what "anarchy arrives" means. Also, there's as much of a chance that it will be a gradual process whose coming would be indiscernible as there is that it would arrive by way of revolution, such as the enforcer class summarily saying no to the immoral commands of their psychopath leaders. - It could be referred to in debates to show that anarchists are willing to give to the poor when not forced to. This would be to dignify their claims that coercion is okay if the results are agreeable and that the State takes care of the poor.
Recommended Posts